- Watch the Scott Brown vs. Elizabeth Warren debates, if you can. Massachusetts is the most ...well, socialistic of all the American states. If you want to understand the sloppy middle of American politics, you have to understand Scott Brown. He represents the semi-mythical "independent" candidate. **one is in progress right now, 19:00 EST. **

- Before Scott Brown existed, the existing 'independent' Congressman was Bernie Sanders - who is a Socialist. A real, honest to God, Socialist. Sort of.

If you want to understand the mysterious 'independent' creature, the one who is captured by both Libertarians and Socialists, you must understand Scott Brown, the most conservative Senator to be elected in MA in half a century, and why he is going to lose this term.

I'll dive into the Nader/Gore conversation only to note that Gore didn't carry Tennessee, his home state, which is one of the telling issues. Gore, or the people he trusted, dropped the ball. Yes, Florida was super important, but had Gore carried his home state, FL wouldn't have mattered.

I'll dive into the Nader/Gore conversation only to note that Gore didn't carry Tennessee, his home state, which is one of the telling issues. Gore, or the people he trusted, dropped the ball. Yes, Florida was super important, but had Gore carried his home state, FL wouldn't have mattered.

If Gore would have won any of the states that Clinton won in the previous election, save Nevada, he would have at least tied the election and in most cases would have outright won it.

Whatever. Third party candidates pull from the available pool of likely voters. This was well demonstrated with Ross Perot, and then again with Nader. Electoral college voting is a zero-sum game - someone's win is always somebody else's loss. Any "successful" "third-party" candidate sucks votes from one party or the other, or both. Votes aren't like dollars, you can't just print them up. I'm not quite sure who you're being an apologist for, but the point remains:

There were a lot of states that Gore lost, and that he should have won, where Nader didn't even appear on the ballot. Let's not, also, forget that the Libertarian party ran Harry Browne of Tennessee that year, and the Libertarian party was on 7 more state ballots than Nader was. Gore blew it, plain and simple. He should have never ran away from Clinton.

When Obama wins, they'll want a reason to challenge the election results. And for Republican politicians to have the justification for another four years of obstructionism, resentment, and delegitimization.

Even after Obama is out of office, the Republicans will play the "stolen election" card when they try to limit voting rights.

Well, they can't very well say he's winning because he's black, right?

"Instead, the nation, which is generally reluctant to declare a president a failure — thereby admitting that it made a mistake in choosing him — seems especially reluctant to give up on the first African American president." — George Will

Arguably, that's exactly what Romney DID say with his 47% comment, albeit in a coded way. And of course when he said he would be doing better if he was Latino. The racism is getting less and less subtle as the election drags on.

"And of course when he said he would be doing better if he was Latino"

Except the only Latino the GOP apparently likes right now is Marco Rubio. I don't think Romney would've made it to this point had he been Latino, the party would've held it's nose and rallied behind Santorum.

@RenThing We don't get Firestone up here (although I bought a bottle of parabola that is aging in my cellar for Christmas) but I DO have a one litre bottle of barley wine with not really any label on it.